​Bath Rugby is looking to scale down its plans for a new stadium at The Rec.A consultation exercise has tonight been approved over proposals to formalise its use of the charitable land and allow for a new stadium to be built there.But the club’s current thinking is to put its ambitious aspirations of a 25,000-seater arena on hold.A development of that scale would have meant the demolition of Bath Sports and Leisure Centre and possibly even the Pavilion.But the recession and the club’s overriding desire to establish its right to be at The Rec have led it to lower its sights.The Recreation Ground Trust - made up of three councillors who oversee The Rec - approved an eight-week consultation exercise into the future of the land tonight.The people of Bath - to whom The Rec theoretically belongs under the official term of beneficiaries - will be asked to complete a questionnaire asking for their views on a once-and-for-all solution to a decade of wrangling over the land.This would see the rugby club’s training ground at Lambridge given to the trust to make up for the fact that some of The Rec cannot be openly used by the public, and in anticipation of more of the city centre site disappearing under a larger stadium.The club is still fine-tuning its stadium plans and will not stage its own consultation period until after the trust’s exercise has ended.But it is likely to go for a capacity more like 17,000 - compared to the existing 12,300 figure - in a move that would no longer involve it in having to contribute to the cost of a replacement for the sports centre.The questionnaire asks people whether they agree or disagree with the trust’s proposals and for their ideas on what other activities they would like to see at The Rec, the sports centre and Lambridge - which is likely to become the main venue for the club’s youth rugby.With a bigger footprint, the rugby club would occupy just over 6,000 more square metres of land at The Rec than it currently does during the winter season, while the donation of Lambridge would increase the size of the trust’s landholding by 45,500 square metres. The maths of this are that six times as much land is being put into the trust's ownership as will be lost to year-round public use by the expanded rugby club footprint.The east stand of the new stadium will remain removable so that The Rec can still be managed as an open space during the summer, and there would be improvements to the cricket pavilion and the Turnstile Entrance.Club chief executive Nick Blofeld said it was aiming for a “smaller, more deliverable project,” and welcomed the trust exercise.“We hope that there will be an opportunity for as many people as possible to share their views and we will be supporting their efforts however we can. These are exciting times and this will, once and for all, decide whether the club can stay at its historic home and occupy more space for the development of a slightly bigger, but significantly better stadium.”The club has stressed that there will be no any actual designs emerging during the trust exercise, which will lead to an approach to the Charity Commission asking for the trust's charitable objectives to be rewritten if the shake-up gets public backing.In a message on its website, the club adds: "This is a critical stage and we ask everyone to engage and respond to the Recreation Ground Trust's consultation. If the club cannot create a slightly bigger stadium at The Rec, we will no longer be able to stay at our spiritual home at the heart of Bath."It has also set up the beginnings of its own consultation website at www.attheheartofbath.com and a community information line on 0800 019 2041.Trust chairman Councillor Chris Watt said: “The trustees are very pleased that we can finally put our plans to our beneficiaries. They represent an opportunity to finally resolve the problems we have and place the trust on a very sound footing for the future. Extra land and better facilities will be great for the beneficiaries and we are looking forward to talking to them during this consultation.”The Real Friends of The Rec pressure group, which wants to keep the club at its historic home, said the consultation was "a very important first step towards The Rec becoming a first-class venue for all sports for all people".Chairman Peter Downey said: "Whilst this consultation is only about space and usage and does not go into detailed proposals about new developments such as a new arena on The Rec, the committee of the Real Friends of the Rec believe that members should support the proposals."The exercise will run until June 10 and details, including the questionnaire, will be on the websites www.recreationgroundtrust.org.uk, and www.consult.recreationgroundtrust.org.uk.The trust will also be organising public meetings, details of which will also be on the site once it is fully operational.Paper versions of the consultation document will also be available.

Comments

The Recreation Ground ("the Rec") is a large open space in the centre of Bath, England, next to the River Avon, used for recreational purposes by all Bath residents and the public generally. Lets keep it like that. This 'take over' proposed by Bath Rugby is completely against the reason it was determined in the high courts July 2002 that The Rec was seen as an "open space" to be used "as a recreational facility available for the benefit of the public at large." And As a result of the court's determination, Bath Rugby's use of the Rec for professional rugby was inconsistent with the trusts of the Charity. It is as simple as that. And proposing to put forward a Scheme to swap the Bath Rugby Lambridge training ground into the Recreation Ground Trust for the Rugby Ground at the Rec is completely against everything The Rec stands for.
Not to mention the influx of thugs into out city every other week spoiling the residents enjoyment of OUR facilities which we pay for through the nose! Bath Rugby need to move to Lambridge and take all their meat heads with them! Leave us alone to enjoy OUR Rec and our city in peace.

Thank you Darius however you have missed my point . I have no objection to subsidising activities for all at the rec. however even if in the future the club pays an exorbitent rent i would still object to THE prime site in Bath given over to occasional passive use by a minority with no health and questionable economic benefits . I appreciate that the current "trustees" will not consider alternative use but Darius visualise the benefits of reduced pollution with a park and ride at Lambridge and imagine a modern stadium at the Riverside owned by the club ?

Good luck with your endeavours, William, I am very doubtful that your alternative activities will provide sufficient money to compensate for the loss of the rent from the rugby club. However, I feel that common sense will prevail and will keep Bath Rugby at the Rec!

Darius my understanding is that the proposal is for a large stadium benefitting the Rugby Club to be built on the site currentlly used by the club whose ground is called the Rec which amongst others requires permission from the charity commissioners .Comprehensive historical data is NOT available however the combination of incomplete data and deliberate obfuscation has aroused the interest of me and others .I do not begrudge subsidising a site used by and open to all .However i resent a centrally located prime site sealed off for most of the year benefitting the occasional use of a vocal minority. I am confident that an altruistic club would not hold the council to the unexpired term of a lease which legally is questionable and morally indefensible.Ad Nauseum i will repeat suggestions for use of the site ---- outdoor winter skating ; cycling/bmx tracks and ramps for teenagers ; childrens adventure park ; area for meditation ,pilates ,aerobics .This in addition to use for cricket .football hockey netball The College has a sports course but apart from a gym no sports facilities ....The sports centre should be completely renovated with river facing terraces ,cafes ,etc. Looking from the Grand Parade and Parade Gardens the aspect would be completely opened up to activities .Not only would the health benefits be immeasurable but convert Lambridge into a park and ride and move Rugby to Riverside .

William. The consultation document is by order of the Charity Commission to get the views of users of the Rec as to whether this land swap is to the benefit of the Trust or not. They will use this to either reject or accept the Scheme of Change to the Rec Trust to regularise the use of charitable land by the Sports Centre and the Rugby Club to the detriment of other possible users (mind you I don't see a massive queue of people wanting to use those parts of the Rec!). It is as simple as that. The CC have not required a consultation on future income streams and past subsidies as part of the Consultation. May I suggest you re-read the document especially the Background to the Proposal on page 6 and 7 which explains its purpose. The stark decision you have to make is either to agree to the Scheme which will allow the Trust to remain financially viable or reject it it so that the Trust will need to be financed by the tax payer. The choice is yours.
As I have repeated ad nauseum the historical finances are on the public record. As regards future finances it is a no brainer that to kick out the Rugby Club will be an absolute disaster for the Trust financially unless you have better ideas to compensate for the loss of this substantial income. I am sure the Trustee Board would welcome your ideas!

Darius , i did not mention payments but subsidy in the form for example of a token rent in prior years.
You do not KNOW the projected rent because you say you are not privy to the deal.I repeat this is supposed to be a consultation yet we are not allowed to know the historical and projected financials----why not ?This is supposed to be a TRUST consultation ,isnt it .I see no point in repeating outstanding issues--- your attempts to evade them by either denying words you did say or attributing to me words i did not say speaks volumes.I predict a rocky expensive road ahead particularly since the Riverside is a much more sensible alternative .

William "This they have chosen not to do and with respect you are also unable or unwilling to justify your statement that the taxpayer has not subsidised the club/ nor will it do so in the future ---in your post of April 21st you state "i am not privy to the deal " Neither am i nor is it included in the "consultation" ."
I have stated quite categorically (21/4 post "The tax payer has not paid anything to the Club (it's the other way round"). That is my conclusion in my investigation of the accounts of the Club and the Trust. Please don't attribute to me words that I have not written.
What I meant by not being privy to information, was that I do not know what commercial rent the Trust has agreed with the Club but my guess it is considerably higher than the £113k that the Club pays now. The Club also pays the wages of the groundsman for the Trust.
As regards the Charity Commission this scheme has a very good chance of succeeding as the benefits of getting more land in the Trusts area of benefit (i.e.Bath) outweigh the detriments of not having the use of the rugby ground for the next 60 years (because of the Club's robust lease).
The CC never wanted this charity (they stated before the 2002 case that the Rec did not constitute a charity). A considerable amount of public money has been spent by them in time and legal costs to rule on the Rec usage since 2002 and frankly I think they are delighted that a legal scheme is being put forward that they will be able to accept.

Quite right william, why go seeking facts when you can post assumptions and stats that may or may not be correct, on a public forum. I think Darius has done an excellent job of answering most of your allegations, and quite frankly, the only can of worms I see are in your head. Sorry if the facts, as presented by Darius, do not match your prejudices.

Darius it is not for me to contact Mr.Watts ----it is for the trustees to present a comprehensive consultation including financial data enabling me to form an informed opinion .This they have chosen not to do and with respect you are also unable or unwilling to justify your statement that the taxpayer has not subsidised the club/ nor will it do so in the future ---in your post of April 21st you state "i am not privy to the deal " Neither am i nor is it included in the "consultation" .In any case as you say further debate is useless since the charity commissioners are not going to approve the proposal --- whatever it may be . However thank you , this interchange has prised open a can of worms.